Thursday, January 27, 2011

Again Peoples' Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) is facing problem with the postal department, Varanasi. As on dated 25 January 2011 we received the open envelop which is violation of right to privacy.

PVCHR is continuously facing the similar problem on 20th October, 2010 Frontline, Ireland sent the identity card to the human rights defender facing risk. However till now I did not receive the card. This activity of the department is badly affecting the work and the privacy of the organization.

In this respect we already complained to National Human Rights Commission and to National Human Rights Commission and Prime Minister our office. However no appropriate action was taken by the concerned authority still postal department is interrupting the postage document of the organization.

Therefore it is a kind request to kindly persuade postal department to stop banning the postage document of PVCHR and take immediate action to stop Mr. Srivastava of IB under Home Ministry of India for breaking the privacy of PVCHR so, the organization can works up to full extent and the people may be benefited with organization work.

If you think it is unlikely to be delivered at this stage I could make you a new one and send it by courier if you wish and hopefully you will receive it then?

I am sorry to hear you have not received it yet.

Best wishes,Rachel

PVCHR ED wrote:

A very happy new year.Please confirm us that ID is sending by frontline office or not? Because many my letter in post office are not coming due to screening of Intelligence Agency . With warm regards, Lenin

I am writing to you to tell you about the Front Line ID card for human rights defenders.

It is an ID card that would have your name and picture on it and certifies that you are a human rights defender that is registered with Front Line. The card is intended to be of practical assistance to human rights defenders at risk. We hope that it will enable you to demonstrate that you have international contacts and legitimacy for the work that you are doing. If you would like an ID card please send me your name, the language you want the card in (English, French, Spanish, Arabic or Russian), a passport photograph in jpeg format (head and shoulders only on a plain white background), and postal address to send it to you.

You may also like to know that Front Line has a 24-hour emergency number that can be contacted at any hour on (+353 1 21 00 489) where you can speak to someone in English, French, Spanish, Arabic or Russian. We hope to receive most calls during office hours (09.30 -17.30 Mon-Fri) but if you need to contact us urgently because someone is at risk then you can do so and we will try to help. This number is also on the back of the Human Rights Defender Card.

Yours Sincerely

Louise O'Connor

-- Louise O'Connor Admin Intern

Front Line The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 81 Main Street, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

PVCHR stongly condems the detention of dalit activist Sudhir Dhawale & demands his release immedietly. This act of govt. again proves that india is uppercaste hindu state and discrimination based on caste, religion and gender is order of the day.It is not only maharastra govt, who has done this inhuman act, but all of india's picture is same... Let us be united against brahminical fascism to make india a democratic state .

sudhir dhawale protesting against the binyak sen verdict

Terming the arrest of Dalit activist Sudhir Dhawale as suppression of freedom of speech and the Dalit movement, a group of activists have demanded his release.

Home minister RR Patil has ordered an independent review by an inspector general followed by further action in the next 8 days.

Working in the tribal and naxal-hit areas in the backwards districts of Vidarbha, Dhawale was arrested by Gondia police under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and charged with sedition.

The social and Dalit movement activists have formed a 'Sudhir Dhawale Release Movement' that would raise voice overhis arrest in at least 8 districts in the next few days. The movement has the support of noted activist and documentary film maker Anand Patwardhan, Prakash Reddy, Anandraj Ambedkar, writer Urmila Pawar, Pratima Joshi. They were the part of the group that met the home minister.

They claimed that the police have falsely implicated Dhawale. "He was arrested under the charge of sedition, the charges under which freedom fighters were arrested by Britishers decades ago. He was arrested because he possessed the books related to Marxism and Maoism," said Patwardhan.

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.

--The Buddha

"We are what we think. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee or authorised to receive for the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail to pvchr.india@gmail.com and delete the message. Thank you.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Statement of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, as she concludes her visit to India

NEW DELHI, 21 January 2011 – From 10 to 21 January 2011, I carried out a fact-finding mission to assess the situation of human rights defenders in India, and traveled to New Delhi, Bhubaneshwar (Orissa), Kolkata (West Bengal), Guwahati (Assam), Ahmedabad (Gujarat), Jammu and Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir).

I met with the Foreign Secretary; the Union Home Secretary; the Additional Secretary (International Organisations and Environment Diplomacy); the Joint Secretary (Human Rights), Ministry for Home Affairs; the State Chief Secretary, State Home Secretary and Director-General of Police in states visited; the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission; Members of the Statutory Full Commission; Chairpersons and Members of State Human Rights Commissions; and Judges from the High Court in Delhi. However, I regret I was unable to meet the Prime Minister, nor with members of the Parliament.

I met as well with members of the diplomatic community and United Nations agencies in the capital. Finally, throughout my mission, I met a very wide and diverse segment of the civil society through national and regional consultations.

I thank very much the Government of India for extending an invitation to me and for its exemplary cooperation throughout the mission. I further want to thank all human rights defenders with whom I had meetings, some of whom had to travel long distances to meet me. Finally, I want to express my appreciation to the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator in India for its invaluable support in preparation of and during the mission.

While I must now take some time to review and analyse the considerable amount of information I have received, and to follow up on further exchanges of information with the Government, human rights defenders and other stakeholders, I would like to provide a few preliminary observations and recommendations.

I first want to commend the Government for opening its doors to my mandate. Previous requests to visit India were made by my predecessor in 2002, 2003 and 2004. This is an important development, and I hope that the invitations of other Special Procedures mandate-holders will be similarly honoured in the near future.

I further commend the Government for enabling me to visit five States, which assisted me in gaining a clear understanding of the local specificities in which human rights defenders work. Given the duration of the mission and the size of the country, I regret I could not access all parts of the country, but I invite those who wish to do so to provide me with information now or in the near future.

I note with satisfaction that India has a comprehensive and progressive legal framework which guarantees human rights and fundamental freedoms, as enshrined, inter alia, in the Constitution, the Protection of Human Rights Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the Right to Information Act. I welcome the commitment expressed by Indian authorities to uphold human rights.

I further welcome the draft Bill on the Prevention of Torture with a view to ratifying the Convention Against Torture in the near future.

Besides the National Human Rights Commission and existing State-level Human Rights Commissions, I note the existence of a wide range of Statutory Commissions mandated to promote and protect the rights of, inter alia, women, children, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

However, despite the aforementioned laws aimed at promoting and protecting human rights, I note widespread deficiencies in their full implementation at both central and state levels, adversely affecting the work and safety of human rights defenders. Similarly, I have observed the need for the National and existing State Human Rights Commissions to do much more to ensure a safe and conducive environment for human rights defenders throughout the country.

Throughout my mission, I heard numerous testimonies about male and female human rights defenders, and their families, who have been killed, tortured, ill-treated, disappeared, threatened, arbitrarily arrested and detained, falsely charged, under surveillance, forcibly displaced, or their offices raided and files stolen, because of their legitimate work in upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms.

These violations are commonly attributed to law enforcement authorities; however, they have reportedly also shown collusion and/or complaisance with abuses committed by private actors against defenders. Armed groups have also harassed human rights defenders in some instances.

In the context of India's economic policies, defenders engaged in denouncing development projects that threaten or destroy the land, natural resources and livelihood of their community or of other communities, have been targeted by State agents and private actors, and are particularly vulnerable.

I am particularly concerned at the plight of human rights defenders working for the rights of marginalized people, i.e. Dalits, Adavasis (tribals) religious minorities and sexual minorities, who face particular risks and ostracism because of their activities. Collectivities striving for their rights have in fact been victimized.

Women human rights defenders, who are often at the forefront of the promotion and protection of human rights, are also at particular risk of persecution.

Right To Information (RTI) activists, who may be ordinary citizens, have increasingly been targeted for, among others, exposing human rights violations and poor governance, including corruption of officials.

Other defenders targeted include those defending women's and child rights, fighting impunity for past human rights violations, seeking accountability for communal pogroms, upholding the rights of political prisoners, journalists, lawyers, labour activists, humanitarian workers, and church workers. Defenders operating in rural areas are often more vulnerable.

While I acknowledge the security challenges faced by the country, I am deeply concerned about the arbitrary application of security laws at the national and state levels (in Jammu and Kashmir and in the North-East of India), most notably the Public Security Act and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which direly affects the work of human rights defenders.

I am troubled by the branding and stigmatization of human rights defenders, who are labeled as "naxalites (Maoists)", "terrorists", "militants", "insurgents", "anti-nationalists", "members of underground". Defenders on the ground, including journalists, who report on violations by State and non-State actors in areas affected by insurgency are targeted by both sides.

Freedom of movement of defenders has also been restricted under these security laws; for instance, applications of passport or renewal have been denied, as well as access for defenders to victims in some areas.

Illegitimate restrictions to freedom of peaceful assembly were also brought to my attention: for example, I was informed of instances of protests in support of a human rights defender in detention which were not allowed to take place.

Finally, I am concerned about the amendment to the Foreign Contribution Regulations Act which provides that non-governmental organisations must reapply every five years for the review of their status by the Ministry of Home Affairs in order to receive foreign funding. Such a provision may be used to censor non-governmental organisations which are critical of Government's policies.

In view of the above, the space for civil society is contracted.

Although the judiciary is the primary avenue for legal redress, I have observed that its functioning is hampered by backlog and significant delays in administrating cases of human rights violations.

The National Human Rights Commission and the existing State Human Rights Commissions is an important additional avenue where human rights defenders can seek redress. However, all the defenders I met during the mission voiced their disappointment and mistrust in the current functioning of these institutions. They have submitted complaints related to human rights violations to the Commissions, but reportedly their cases were either hardly taken up, or the investigation, often after a significant period of delay, concluded that no violations occurred. Their main concern lies in the fact that the investigations into their cases are conducted by the police, which in many cases are the perpetrators of the alleged violations. While I welcome the establishment of a human rights defenders focal point within the National Human Rights Commission, I regret that it was not given sufficient prominence within the Commission.

Based on the above, I wish to make the following preliminary recommendations:

To the Central and State Governments:

- The Prime Minister and the Chief Secretaries should publicly acknowledge the importance and legitimacy of the work of human rights defenders, i.e. anyone who "individually and in association with others, […] promote[s] and […] strive[s] for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels " (article 1 of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, A/RES/53/144). Specific attention must be given to human rights defenders who face particular risks (as identified above).

- Security forces should be clearly instructed to respect the work and the rights and fundamental freedoms of human rights defenders, especially human rights defenders who face particular risks (as identified above).

- Sensitization training to Security forces on the role and activities of human rights defenders should be delivered, with technical advice and assistance from relevant UN entities, non-governmental organizations and other partners.

- Prompt and impartial investigations on violations committed against human rights defenders should be conducted, and perpetrators should be prosecuted.

- The Supreme Court judgment on police reform should be fully implemented in line with international standards, in particular at the State level.

- Full implementation of laws and policies which guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms of human rights defenders should be ensured.

- A law on the protection of human rights defenders developed in full and meaningful consultation with civil society and on the basis of technical advice from relevant UN entities should be enacted.

- The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act should be critically reviewed.

- The Draft Bill on Prevention Against Torture should be adopted without further delay.

- The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women should be ratified. The ratification of the complaints procedure will provide women human rights defenders an opportunity to access another procedure to address any violations of rights under the Convention.

- The Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Public Security Act should be repealed and application of other security laws which adversely affect the work and safety of human rights defenders should be reviewed.

- The functioning of the National Human Rights Commission should be reviewed with a view to strengthening the Commission by, inter alia: broadening the selection criteria for the appointment of the Chairperson; diversifying the composition of the Commission; extending the one-year limitation clause; establishing an independent committee in charge of investigating complaints filed; elevating the status of the human rights defenders focal point by appointing a Commissioner. The Protection of Human Rights Act should be amended as necessary in full and meaningful consultation with civil society.

- State Human Rights Commissions should be established in States where such commissions are not yet in existence without further delay.

- Central and State Governments should continue collaborating with Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, including by extending invitations for country visits.

To National and existing State Human Rights Commission:

- The supportive role of the commissions for human rights defenders should be strengthened by inter alia, conducting regular regional visits; meeting human rights defenders in difficulty or at risk; and undertaking trial observations of cases of human rights defenders wherever appropriate.

- The visibility of the commissions should be ensured through regular and proactive engagement with civil society and the media.

- A toll-free 24-hour emergency hotline for human rights defenders should be established.

- The commissions should monitor the full implementation of recommendations made by UN human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures mandate-holders, Treaty Bodies, and the Universal Periodic Review.

To the judiciary:

- In the absence of a witnesses and victims protection Act, the judiciary should take measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders at risk, witnesses and victims.

- The importance of the role of human rights defenders in the vibrant and active functioning of the judiciary should be recognised.

To human rights defenders

- Platforms or networks aimed at protecting defenders and facilitating dialogue should be devised or strengthened.

- Defenders should better acquaint themselves with the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

- Efforts should be made to continue making full use of United Nations Special Procedures and other international human rights mechanisms when reporting on human rights violations.

To the international community and donors

- The European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders and local strategies on India should be implemented on a systematic basis.

- The situation of human rights defenders, in particular the most targeted and vulnerable ones, should be continually monitored, and support for their work should be expressed through, inter alia, interventions before central and state institutions.

- Efforts should be intensified in empowering civil society.

To all stakeholders:

- The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders should be translated in main local languages, and disseminated widely.

- Efforts should be continued to raise civic awareness among the general public, and the spirit of dialogue and cooperation in society fostered.

I will present my full report with final conclusions and recommendations to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2012.

For the last two days many organizations and individuals who have been supportive of our position have come out with their suggestions in response to both emails I had circulated protesting the discrimination of the office of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders towards Uttar Pradesh. Respecting majority of those suggestions,I participated in the meeting after being invited by respected Sri Miloon Kothari, former UN Special Rapporteur on Housing.

Friends, I am glad to inform you all that three other organizations from UP were already present in the meeting venue to speak on the situation of human rights defenders. During the discussion Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya, UN Special Rapporteur expressed her disappointment with my letters. She felt the letters were direct attack on her and on her office. She advised me to discuss my grievances with representatives of her office and the members of the working group (WG), responsible for the entire mission and sort out the problems.

The meeting took place at 5.00pm. Representatives from the office of the Special Rapporteur and a representative of the working group were present at the meeting. I came across ample proof of non involvement of the office of Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya. All the omissions and commissions were done by the WG in Delhi. In fact the Special Rapporteur was entirely dependent on the advice of the WG. I believe, her office remained under the impression that the group is doing justice to the people of India and shall be responsible for upholding the credibility and impartiality of the UN system. However, the truth is that the Working Group in their collective wisdom did not consider people like Mr. K.K.Roy or Mr Chittaranjan Singh or Mr Ramkumar or Ms Arundhati Dhruv experience enough to represent the issues of Human Right Defenders in UP.

As the truth is out in open, I offer my unconditional apology to Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya and to her office. However, I continue to think that UN being a public body must come under serious public scrutiny. In the meeting I also drew everybody's attention to a strange coincidence, i.e., I was working under therepresentative of the working group present in the meeting when I received threat on my life from the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. He did not come to support me then nor does he speak for me today, even though I and my family continue to remain under threats.But he is a very important person in planning the programmes for the mission. Sitting on the dais with Mrs. Sekaggya, he talks on building solidarity and networking among Human Rights Defenders across the country.Mrs. Sekaggya, this is also a trend in India affecting the Human Rights Defenders and must be noted by your office.

During the meeting I came to know that the Government of India (GoI) put several restrictions on the movements of the Mrs. Sekaggya. I strongly condemn this decision of the GoI. I along with other civil society groups will try to access all the communications between the office of the Special Rapporteur and the GoI under Right to Information Act and initiate necessary campaign to make the Government more cooperative to the UN System in future.

I promise the UN Special Rapporteur that the civil society groups from UP will do its best to impress the national government for consideration and implementation of her report. We also expect the WG to be more democratic and representative. PVCHR acknowledges the important role the WG and expresses its desire to be its part to provide necessary input in future. I shall wait to hear from the group members.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Many of you have seen the open letter dated 13th January, 2011, sent by me to the UN Secretary General protesting against discriminatory decision of the office of UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders. I wrote that letter because I hold the office of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders responsible for excluding representation from Uttar Pradesh in National Meeting on 11 January 2011. However, I am shocked to see the desperation among some NGO leaders to accept martyrdom by valiantly shielding the office of Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya. They even stooped to the level of calling one human rights organization from Varanasi to represent in the meeting on 18th January, 2011, without realizing that our organization People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) stood by that organization when it receive threat from the state whereas, the head of that organization kept quite when I received threat from the Chief Minister of UP. I wish to highlight that the office of the Rapporteur instead of observing the trend of violations against Human rights defenders in India is more interested in setting trend of favoritism and operating through the age old British policy of 'divide and rule'. I also understand, we still have 'Roy Bahadurs' working for their masters. Colonialism is a mindset and I am not surprises to see that among some of the people who fight for dignity. People in the office of the Rapporteur have done everything except giving answer to my question- Why did you exclude UP from the meeting and who advised that? I still expect a simple answer to a simple question.

I hold many organizations and individuals like Mr Miloon Kothari engaged in the preparatory process for the visit of the Special Rapporteur with high regards and have reasons to believe that they have no interest in keeping the representation from Uttar Pradesh out. I thank Ms Teesta Setalvad for understanding our feelings. Who else other than her can understand what it takes to fight the powerful state? In my initial mail to the office of the Rapporteur, I had urged her to visit Chhatisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir and North Eastern States. I am sure many others might have also suggested the same and I for everyone's behalf thank her for prioritizing those states.The planning of meetings for the Rapporteur smacks a hidden agenda to alienate some groups representing certain states. For example, the planners have asked the people from Uttarakhand to travel to Kolkatta for the meeting instead of coming to Delhi. The southern states were clubbed with Orissa when nearby state hosted another meeting. This cannot be just coincidence. Whose interests are protected and promoted here?

I condemn attempt by some people to paint me as egoist, irrational and attention seeker. I had written about the plight of victims in Manipur, Chattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa, Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Bihar highlighting challenges posed by the state. My struggle for dalit and minority rights started much before I worked on projects. Carpet mafias and my feudal relative nexus poisoned my brother when we were working against child labor. I rebelled against my feudal family and embraced Buddhism because I believed that truth must prevail. Historic blunders must not be allowed to continue. I believed in caste reconciliation. I donated my ancestral lands to people belonging to socially weaker section. Now someone tells me that I did all these for drawing attention?My commitment for a just, secular India is absolute. I only seek attention of the victims/survivors. I do not need certificate from so called human rights defenders who not only steal ideas but also sell religion, caste, victims and what not to get projects.

We believe, history will consider the outcome of the findings by Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya,UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defendersin India as pre decided, biased and non- reflection of the ground realities in India.

My decision to protest against the discrimination by the office of UN Special Rapporteur is final and irreversible. I have been advised by my organization and others to stage a peaceful sit-in protest outside the meeting venue. The office of the Prime Minister, Union Home Minister and the office of the Secretary General and media have already been informed about it. The organizers and the office of the Special Rapporteur will solely be responsible for the consequences if any untoward incident takes place at the meeting venue.

Thank you for your message and information provided in the context of the forthcoming visit of the Special Rapporteur (SR) on the situation of human rights defenders to India. My apologies for the delay in responding. We are currently working on the programme for the SR, both in Delhi and outside the capital.

We thank you for your offer to arrange a meeting in Varanasi for the SR with 20 human rights defenders from Uttar Pradesh,Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand. However, I am not sure that she will be able to come to Varanasi in which case I would like to enquire about your availability to travel either to Delhi or elsewhere to be part of a consultation with the SR. Exact dates and places will be communicated at a later stage.

Re: Visit of the SR on human rights defenders to India, 11-21 January 2010:second input

To

Mrs Margaret Sekaggya

Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders

Through

Dolores Infante-CañibanoHuman Rights OfficerCivil and Political Rights Section Special Procedures BranchOffice of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Dear Mrs Sekaggya

Thank you very much for relating to our organization People'sVigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) for inputs for your incoming visit to India. On behalf of our organization, I have alreadyresponded to your mail. Subsequently, I was wondering whether I couldhave made more purposeful contribution in your planning so as to makethe visit more result oriented. I urge you to consider my inputs complete after going through the following text.

I am sure every rights conscious global citizen and the scholarsacross the world would agree that sovereign independent countriesacross the globe impacted by international legal regime have started showing more understanding towards protection of human rights, evenwith reluctance and my country, India is no exception. Successivegovernments in India, under constraints, have preferred to pick andchoose treaties. A close monitoring of this decision by the state leads to a constraint-impact linkage. However, PVCHR believes thathuman rights agreements in India is a result of the groundswell ofopinion generated across the Indian society with roots in rural India.Messages from villages have changed the politics inside the country. It has influence legislative agendas, altered political coalitions anddefined the terms of acceptable state actions. Having achieved thatthe country still ponders over issues of justification andaffordability of human rights in our everyday's life. India has failed to understand that better human rights leads to stronger democraticpractices.

PVCHR believes and realized that in India, a section of civil societygroups who think legalistically, have monopolized all information related to issues of human rights both within and outside the country.These elite groups have always denied the rightful place to themillions of silent, barefoot human rights defenders (HRDs)creating'brown revolution' true to the color of the earth, in every village of India. PVCHR has been trying to its bit by 'hand holding' these humanrights defenders who are scripting success stories for humanitywithout any expectation. Unrelenting faith in human value rule of lawhave been their driving force.

These HRDs including women, PVCHR connects with are predominantlydalits (fighting to break free from 3000 years of discrimination),Muslims (victims of discrimination since India became a Republic) andtribals (lost everything in the debate between development and environment). They work in 'ground zero', which comes in the fearful'red corridor', ruled by the Maoist groups. They have been opposingthe violations by both the state and non state actors and many of themhave been in and out of the prison without knowing why. In the process hundreds have lost their lives. No one records it. Everything goesunreported. Thankfully, outside support and publicity hardly bothersthem. They believe that, only they can fight their battle andinfluence politics respecting rule of law.

PVCHR believes that it is time your visit must make a historicaldeparture by listening to the unsung heroes-human rights defenders intrue sense. We propose to organize your meeting at Varanasi (culturalcapital of India and one and half hour by plane from Delhi) with 20 odd human rights defenders representing the states of Uttar Pradesh,Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand. We in the organization believe thatafter this meeting you will look at issues of human rights defendersin India in a different way. Date, time will be as per your consideration. When you think about your visit to my country, pleaseremember, Delhi is not India.

Best regards

Dr Lenin

On 11/25/10, Dolores Infante Canibano <DInfante@ohchr.org> wrote: > Dear defenders,>> As you may know, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights> defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, will visit India from 11 to 21 January 2011.> In this connection, we would be grateful if you could provide us with > relevant information regarding the visit, in particular about the> following points:>> - Main issues of concern for human rights defenders in India> - Suggestions of places to visit in the country taken into account the > duration of the visit> - Relevant key authorities,institutions and civil society to meet> -Any other pertinent information>> We would appreciate it if you could provide us with your input as soon as > possible and, ideally, no later than 3 December 2010.>> Many thanks in advance for your assistance.>> Best regards,>> Dolores>> Dolores Infante-Cañibano> Human Rights Officer > Civil and Political Rights Section> Special Procedures Branch> Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights> Tel: +41 (0) 22 917-9730> Fax: +41(0) 22 917-9006

*Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternalrule. **--The Buddha*

*This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.Unless you are the addressee or authorised to receive for the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any informationcontained in the message. If you have received the message in error, pleaseadvise the sender by reply e-mail to pvchr.india@gmail.com and delete the message. Thank you.*

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.

--The Buddha

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee or authorised to receive for the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail to pvchr.india@gmail.com and delete the message. Thank you.

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.

--The Buddha

"We are what we think. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee or authorised to receive for the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail to pvchr.india@gmail.com and delete the message. Thank you.

As you may know, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, will visit India from 11 to 21 January 2011. In this connection, we would be grateful if you could provide us with relevant information regarding the visit, in particular about the following points:

- Main issues of concern for human rights defenders in India - Suggestions of places to visit in the country taken into account the duration of the visit - Relevant key authorities,institutions and civil society to meet -Any other pertinent information

We would appreciate it if you could provide us with your input as soon as possible and, ideally, no later than 3 December 2010.

Protest against discriminatory decision of the office of UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders

To

Mr.Ban Ki- Moon

Secretary General

United Nations

Respected Sir

PVCHR welcomes the visit of Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders in India. We wish her a purposeful mission. However, our organization People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) protests against the decision of her office to discriminate against the human rights groups of the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and request your immediate intervention.

We are yet to understand why her office has kept us out of the meeting when Mrs. Sekaggya met civil society representatives from across the country. What were the selection criteria for attending this meeting where no one from Uttar Pradesh qualify?

We in Uttar Pradesh think that officials in charge of the programme planning along with their local contacts have decided before hand to keep us out. The biggest state of the nation with largest population also carries the distinction of maximum number of cases of torture by the state. The plights of Human Rights Defenders are no less pathetic than other states. Everyday newspaper carries the stories of the struggle faced by the human rights defenders in the remotest part of the state.

Our organization like several others has been facing threat from the state. No human rights leaders showed solidarity with Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi, Executive Director of the organisation when the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh threatened him in a live press conference. We are giving example to highlight the complex nature of dynamics that plays within a vast country like India. Many human rights organizations/defenders from UP are not willing to work with big NGOs as they do not compromise on the issue of dignity for getting fund. Omission of Uttar Pradesh is part of feudal strategy. We demand that the people within the office must explain why and who advised them for such calculated omission.

The National Human Rights Commission, India, 2010 has listed 25 cases related to Human Rights Defenders, out of which 12 cases are from Uttar Pradesh. The national and regional political parties have been expressing their concerns on growing number of attacks on the human rights defenders in the state. Mr. Ajit, Ms Manju and Mr. Atul Sharma face extreme threat for their work against child trafficking. Both Sanjay and Anil Singh from Bundelkhand known for their work on water rights and empowerment of women lost their activist father last year. The accused, a sympathizer of ruling party absconded from the court premises and now threat to kill both brothers. Dalit activist, Mr. Harilal was killed by the mafias controlling employment generation programme for poor like MGNEREGA. Mr. Mangla who works on dalit rights was denied bail by the court on a bailable offence. The state of Uttar Pradesh throws an interesting example of nexus among judiciary, police, political parties and non state actors against the human rights defenders.

PVCHR has prior communication with the office of the Special Rapporteur on the need to reach out to the most vulnerable human rights defenders living in the rural parts of India. These defenders operate within defined socio-cultural settings who perhaps do not speak English. It is not that their life would have changed had the Special Rapporteur come down to listen them. These defenders shall continue to fight against the system and demand more responsiveness from the state after all they have a stake in their country. But the magnanimity of the SR would have made them more determined. Delhi is not India and power brokers in the UN corridor are not the well wishers of the human rights defenders. We, the civil society groups in Uttar Pradesh consider the marginalization and discrimination against the state as a deliberate humiliation of the thousands of survivors of torture and the barefoot human rights defenders who live by day to uphold the spirit of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

PVCHR will continue to protest against the decision of Special Rapporteur in all possible forums both inside and outside the country. We have the right to do so. We would do it democratically, peacefully and in Gandhian way. After all UN System is expected to be non discriminatory.